Comparing strengths and weaknesses of three ecosystem services modelling tools in a diverse UK river catchment

Abstract

Ecosystem services modelling tools can help land managers and policy makers evaluate the impacts of alternative management options or changes in land use on the delivery of ecosystem services. As the variety and complexity of these tools increases, there is a need for comparative studies across a range of settings, allowing users to make an informed choice. Using examples of provisioning and regulating services (water supply, carbon storage and nutrient retention), we compare three spatially explicit tools - LUCI (Land Utilisation and Capability Indicator), ARIES (Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services) and InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs). Models were parameterised for the UK and applied to a temperate catchment with widely varying land use in North Wales. Although each tool provides quantitative mapped output, can be applied in different contexts, and can work at local or national scale, they differ in the approaches taken and underlying assumptions made. In this study, we focus on the wide range of outputs produced for each service and discuss the differences between each modelling tool. Model outputs were validated using empirical data for river flow, carbon and nutrient levels within the catchment. The sensitivity of the models to land-use change was tested using four scenarios of varying severity, evaluating the conversion of grassland habitat to woodland (0-30% of the landscape). We show that, while the modelling tools provide broadly comparable quantitative outputs, each has its own unique features and strengths. Therefore the choice of tool depends on the study question.

The Integration of Ecosystem Services in Planning: An Evaluation of the Nutrient Retention Model Using InVEST Software

“…The collaboration with external expertise (Dario Masante, Joint Research Centre) confirmed that the intermediate flows of the model were analyzed by other relevant ES software (AIRES of LUCI) [5]. Outputs of the validation process were shared with the external research group, the ones that tested the nutrient retention function with different software to define a comparative assessment.…”

“…Among others, methodologies for ES accounting at different scales have been developed, and new tools for mapping ES are now available (e.g., Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs-InVEST, Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services-AIRES, Land Utilization and Capability Indicator-LUCI) [5][6][7][8]. The assessment of ES through their spatial distribution is a key element to set policy targets for sustainability and resiliency because their visualization highlights the trade-off between different alternatives [9][10][11].…”

Fragmentation and thresholds in hydrological flow‐based ecosystem services

“…Nonetheless, the LUCI model has shown good performance in validation against observed data for simulated flow and N concentration in streams at the national scale in Wales (see supplementary material in Sharps et al. ). Performance will be dependent on accuracy of input data on agricultural pollutants and topography (a 5‐m DTM [NextPerspectives ] is available for the UK, which is hydrologically corrected as part of model processing).…”

Trade-Offs and Synergies in Ecosystem Service within the Three-Rivers Headwater Region, China

“…As the supply of ecosystem services varies with LULC types, both land conversion and management can influence this feedback in terms of both space and quantity [59]. Although the total areas of grassland and unused land (the two largest components of our dataset) have not varied a great deal between 2000 and 2012 (Figure 3b), conversion between them has been the most widespread within the TRHR, especially in high-altitude areas in the west and north (Figure 4).…”